Printable View
Okay... so I just answered two posts with the same answer.... EF 200 f/2 IS USM or EF 135 f/2 USM. Aren't these lenses nice?! Great for indoor sports or for outside with INSANE shutter speeds. I love how light and cheap the 135 f/2 is compared to the 200 f/2. Very good deal... it's basically the same size as the new EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro. Anyone else have such a fancy for those lenses? f/2 rocks! :)
- Jordan
www.freshphotohawaii.com
Actually, I'm quite taken with the EF 200mm f/2.8L II - it's the same weight and only 1" longer than the 135mm f/2, and very sharp. Trade off is a 50% longer focal length for a stop of aperture (and while I'd like IS and that stop back at 200mm, the 4 lbs and $4500 difference between theEF 200mm f/2.8L II and theEF 200mm f/2L IS is not a trade-off I'm prepared to make!!). Roger of lensrentals.com calls theEF 200mm f/2.8L II, "The best lens nobody knows about."
I would love a 135mm f/2. Also, its not fair that you live in Hawaii, great website. :)
The 200 f/2.8 is an outdoor sports lens, the 135 f/2 is an indoor sports lens. Yes, they're very physically similar but they really have different purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Why don't you marry it then? Oh wait, you can't, because I already did. [:D]
Heard of "f/8 and be there"? Well I say "f/2 was there already (because it's so fast!)" [:D]
Ha..ha..ha.. too
I have EF135 F2 L awesome hooked to 1D MKII love this lens always give good outcome. EF 200 F2 L i should have purchase it early last year when they sell it at USD$5.5k now its USD6.7k[:@]
Ha..ha..ha.. too
I have EF135 F2 L awesome hooked to 1D MKII love this lens always give good outcome. EF 200 F2 L i should have purchase it early last year when they sell it at USD$5.5k now its USD6.7k[:@]
Haha yeah Hawaii is great! You should check it out here sometime. I'm sad to leave but I'm moving to France to be with my girlfriend. It's the south of France so the weather is quite nice there too (not as nice as here of course - I think Hawaii is one of the best places in the world to be!)
Thanks for the comment on my website too! I like your ShutterFly site. The photo on the main page with the baseball pitcher.... VERY nice! Beautiful bokeh - was that the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 ? I've been curious about that lens. I've used just about EVERY L-series lens Canon makes (no joke... think the 35mm f/1.4 and the 600 f/4 are the only two I haven't used!) but I haven't use many non-Canon lenses. I used to have a Sigma 17-70 and it was okay but then upgraded to my EF 24-105 f/4 L. Been curious about the Sigma telephotos... what do you think?
- Jordan
www.freshphotohawaii.com
My 135mm f/2 is one of my favorite lenses. I lust after the 200mm f/2 and would like to have a deeper relationship with it, but I'm not sure my wife would approve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Gee. You poor guy. :)
Hawaii is my dream place to live because of the night sky. I've never been, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Southern France? Sounds terrible, you have my sympathies [:P]
Actually the baseball picture was taken with a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS, sadly rented, not mine. But i do like that Sigma a lot, great for the price. Thanks for the comment on the site!
Yeah! The 300 f/2.8 is killer isn't it? I am thinking about renting it today to try and get some pics of Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt up at Turtle Bay Resort..... I don't like being a paparazzi-guy though... haha!
f/2 is overrated [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
Is f/4 @ 500mm?? [:O]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsartin
Noooo, it can't be, f/4 @ 500 is way underrated.[:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Could you say more about their differences? I've been looking at them both and can't quite decide between them.[*-)]
--Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gina Franco
The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM and the EF 135mm f/2L USM share similar image quality and build quality (both excellent) - they really are close cousins. The differences are focal length (the 200mm is 50% longer) and aperture (the 200mm lets in half as much light). Brendan refers to them as 'sports lenses' in the sense that both are telephoto lenses which lack image stabilization, meaning you need fast shutter speeds - but you need those for sports anyway. Indoor sports tend to be less-well lit, but you tend to be closer to the action - thus, the 135mm f/2L is an 'indoor sports' lens.
However, on a full frame body, the 135mm f/2L is an incredible head-and-shoulders portrait lens (I use an 85mm f/1.8 on a 1.6x crop body for that purpose).
Mainly, it comes down to focal length - the out-of-focus blur you'll get will be similar (for subjects with the same framing) because although the 200mm f/2.8 has a narrower aperture, you'll be further from your subject.
So, I'd recommend making your decision based on whether you want 135mm or 200mm. Also, if you're leaning towards the 200mm and have the funds, keep in mind that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L provides the same focal length and max aperture as well as offering more flexibility, although it's larger, heavier, and the image quality is slightly lower than the primes. The zoom is also available with IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
That's *very* helpful--thank you! I love the 85mm 1.8 on my 1.6x crop body, especially for portraits, and have been looking at these two lenses to gain a bit more reach. I know the 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens, but I'm often taking photos at a monastery, indoors, mostly in a crowded chapel, and at intimate events (mass celebrations or investitures, for example), so I'd like a lens that isn't imposing or too heavy--and well, primes are very beautiful for this reason, aren't they? I've been leaning toward the 135mm f2L, but now you've confirmed for me that in low light, indoor situations this is likely my candidate. It sounds like the 200mm (half the light of the 135mm!) may not serve my purposes.
Again, thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gina Franco
Glad to help! I have the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM, and it is a great lens, but not so great indoors. For the types of shooting you mention, I think you'll be better off with the EF 135mm f/2L USM, both because of the extra stop of aperture, and because 135mm will be easier to hand-hold than 200mm.